Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 29 (CHH)

Kehar Singhs v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2002-05-01

FAKHRUDDIN

body2002
ORDER Fakhruddin, J. 1. Heard. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay compensation as awarded by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1429/96 in case of Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration, reported in 1996 III AD (Delhi) 333, for the death of each victim in Anti-Sikh Riots occurred in the year 1984 with interest thereon from the date of incident. The petitioners further pray to direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the family members of the petitioners. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident took place in the town of Dongargarh (Chhattisgarh) where Shri Harmit Singh aged about 25 years, son of the petitioner No. 1 and the second one was Sardar Santosh Singh, aged about 58 years, who was husband of petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that on 15-11-1984 a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given on the spot as immediate relief to both the families and in the year 1998 Rs. 30,000/- was paid. Thereafter a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given. So far the petitioners have received the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-in all on account of death of each victim. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the State of Madhya Pradesh in 1998 published a notice saying that if any of the relative or family member of the aggrieved family wants to make report, then he/she may make a report to the Police and pursuant thereto, son of petitioner No. 1 made a report to the police vide Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 in case of petitioner No. 2, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners had made several representations before various authorities for enhancement of amount of compensation. It is further submitted that petitioners have filed representation for compassionate appointment vide Annexure P-3 and the Collector, Rajnandgaon has refused vide letter dated 6-2-2001 (Annexure P-4). 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996 Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration, reported in 1996 AIHC 5644, the Delhi High Court directed payment of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest and also made a general direction that this should apply to other similar cases. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996 Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration, reported in 1996 AIHC 5644, the Delhi High Court directed payment of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest and also made a general direction that this should apply to other similar cases. He has drawn attention to para 10 of the said judgment which read as under :-- "Article 21 is the Nation's commitment to bring every individual or group of persons within its protective fold. This nation belongs to members of all the communities. They are equal members of the Indian Society, Equality before law and equal protection of laws is ensured to them by Article 14 of the Constitution to them. None is to be favoured or discredited. The conduct of any person or group of persons has to be controlled by the State for the lofty purpose enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the duty of the State to create a climate where the cleavage between members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed are eradicated. The State must act in time so that the precious lives of the people are not destroyed or threatened. Otherwise, Article 21 will remain a paper guarantee. Time is long overdue for adopting measures that have more than a hortatory effect in enforcing Article 21 of the Constitution. The State cannot adopta "do nothing attitude". Like disease prevention, the State must take every precaution, measure and initiative to prevent terrorem populi of the magnitude represented by 1984 riots and in the event of an out-break of riot it must act swiftly to curb the same and not allow precious time to slip by, as any inaction or passivity on its part can result in loss of precious life and liberty of individuals amounting to violation and negation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The State has to enforce minimum standards of civilized behaviour of its citizens so that the life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual is protected and preserved and is not jeopardized or endangered. The State has to enforce minimum standards of civilized behaviour of its citizens so that the life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual is protected and preserved and is not jeopardized or endangered. If it is not able to do all that then it cannot escape the liability to pay adequate compensation to the family of the persons killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which mandates that life cannot be taken away except according to the procedure established by law. " 4. The matter came for consideration before the Supreme Court in case of S.S. Ahluwalia v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2001(3) M.P.H.T. 1 = AIR 2001 SC 1309, wherein it has been noted as under :-- "In the wake of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, there were several killings of Sikhs in Delhi and other parts of the country between October 31, 1984 till November, 1984 which involved arson, looting and murder. A committee was constituted headed by Justice R.N. Mishra of this Court which made an inquiry and reported that Sikhs killed in those riots were 3874 in Delhi, 126 in Kanpur and 69 in Bokaro. Civil Writ Petition No. 1429/1996, titled Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration (1996 AIHC 5644) was filed in the High Court of Delhi for paying compensation to the dependents of those killed in the riots after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi as the State had a duty to protect the life of its citizens and the State ought to pay compensation thereof. The High Court of Delhi by its order dated July 5, 1996 held that in the expanded meaning attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution it is the duty of the State to create a climate where members of the Society belonging to different faiths, cast and creed live together and, therefore, the State has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual which should not be jeopardized or endangered. If in any circumstances the State is not able to do so, then it cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. If in any circumstances the State is not able to do so, then it cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, directed payment of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest and also made a general direction that this direction should apply to similar cases also. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed seeking to extend the benefit of the judgment in Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration (supra) to the entire country and for certain other reliefs. It is brought to our notice that the number of persons killed in each of the State is as under :-- Nos. Killed State 3874 Delhi 1 Rajasthan 3 Orissa 106 Haryana 2 Himachal Pradesh 120 Bihar 98 M.P. 260 Uttar Pradesh 9 Maharashtra ----------- 4473 ----------- While noting the aforesaid contents, the Supreme Court has held as under :-- "Certain claims have been made in para 13.3 of this writ petition setting out certain facts which need to be verified. After this petition was filed notices were issued to the Government of different States and they filed responses in each one of those cases stating the steps that have been taken by them in cases where there had been death or other kinds of violence resulting in injuries or loss of property. But in the nature of the circumstances of the case, it is very difficult for us to extend the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Bhajan Kaur (supra) to all the States without making a detailed examination of the circumstances arising in each case. Such examination cannot be done by us. Therefore it would be appropriate for us to direct the High Courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Orissa, Punjab and Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Patna, Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad and Bombay in the States of Delhi, Rajasthan, Orissa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa todeal with the matter in respect of the allegations made herein in respect of the State falling in its jurisdiction by treating this writ petition as a petition filed in that High Court. These proceedings, therefore, shall stand transferred to the respective High Courts. These proceedings, therefore, shall stand transferred to the respective High Courts. A copy of the petition with Annexurcs and response of the respective State Government shall be sent to the High Court for appropriate action." 5. A plain reading of the said order shows that the Supreme Court while considering the judgment of Delhi High Court passed in case of Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration (supra) has noted down that the High Court of Delhi by its order dated July 5th, 1996 held that in the expanded meaning attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State to create a climate where members of the Society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed live together and therefore the State has the duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual which should not be jeopardized or endangered and if in such circumstances the State is unable to do so, then it " cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the families of the victims killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore the High Court directed payment of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest. While noting so, the Supreme Court has directed the High Courts concerned to deal with the matter in respect of the allegations made therein, in respect of the State falling in its jurisdiction by treating that writ petition as a petition filed in that High Court and those proceedings shall stand transferred to the respective High Courts." 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the State of Madhya Pradesh has been re-organised and on date of decision of Supreme Court dated 16-3-2001 rendered in case of S.S. Ahluwalia (supra), the State of Chhattisgarh was already formed and so far as the victims of the present case is concerned, they were residing in State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, petitioners pray for extending the benefit of the judgment in Bhajan Kaur (supra) to the State of Chhattisgarh as it is a welfare State. 7. From the documents on record, it is clear that Harmit Singh and Santosh Singh both had died in Anti-Sikh Riots and certain amount was paid to their dependents. 8. 7. From the documents on record, it is clear that Harmit Singh and Santosh Singh both had died in Anti-Sikh Riots and certain amount was paid to their dependents. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record and taking into consideration the judgment of Delhi High Court passed in case of Bhajan Kaur (supra) and the decision of Supreme court in case of S.S. Ahluwalia v. Union (supra), in the opinion of this Court, it is just and proper that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation be awarded from the date of incident with interest @ 9% per month after adjusting the amount already paid to the dependents, within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 9. So far as the other reliefs regarding compensate appointment and other claims are concerned, petitioners are entitled to make a representation before the Competent Authority and in case such a representation is filed, the competent authority shall consider the same afresh and pass a reasoned order within 3 months from the date of receipt of representation. 10. It is made clear that in case of the order passed by the respondents are adverse to the interest of the petitioners, then they are at liberty to apply afresh. 11. The State would also submit report that after death of victims, whether any FIR was filed and whether any culprits were brought to the book in this incident. The report to that effect shall be filed within 3 months before the Registrar General for perusal in chamber. This petition is partly allowed with the liberty/direction aforesaid.